Ranger Revealed!
Hotshot
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 15,014
Likes: 35
From: Semper Fi tell I die!
hyundai start making a truck already? i was hearing they were gonna start building 3 cylinder diesel versions
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,379
Likes: 9
From: midwest
i see it now as helping ford taking total pickup sales from gm
Logistics Pro
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,512
Likes: 18
From: Detroit
Didn't realize that even the 2.7 and 3.5L ecoboosts bad the water pump issue. You say the none transverse versions don't have the waterpump behind the timing chain cover? That include the new N/A 3.3?
My Ex is still driving the 2014 Subaru Forester XT that I bought new....Subaru screwed it up with some update that was eventually corrected. 84,000 miles and it runs fine. I guess thats all the proof I need.
My Ex is still driving the 2014 Subaru Forester XT that I bought new....Subaru screwed it up with some update that was eventually corrected. 84,000 miles and it runs fine. I guess thats all the proof I need.
Water pumps don't fail often, but as an old guy who changed water pumps in under an hour in 1960's cars (with a $15 rebuilt pump), the new engines are a PITA.
Senior User
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 336
Likes: 2
Haha, No. I fall into the city boy wants a truck he dose not need category. I find myself looking at many different brands and models.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 40,024
Likes: 1,520
From: Maine, Virginia
I was one of the people most fearful of carbon deposits from DI in the early days--you can look at my posting history--so I get it.
The new 3.5 and 2.7 Ecoboosts (non transverse applications) do have port injectors as well as DI, which is a Toyota system to both reduce emissions (better fuel atomizing at idle) and to clean backs of intake valves.
But there are DI-only 2011 Eboosts with over 200k miles on them that have had no problem with carbon deposits. (I'm a Subaru fan also and their current 2.0 DI Turbo DOES seem to have the intake valve carbon problems, so I have no illusion that this is no longer a problem...)
So 2 things make me feel better--Ford has a good history with no major carbon buildup problems with DI only, and as they revise their Eboosts into the next gen, they seem to be adding secondary port injection....although the first year Ranger 2.3EB may not be one of the engines to benefit from this.
For what it's worth, I have looked at Edges and Explorers with the 3.5 normally aspirated engine and the 2.7 and 3.5 Ecoboosts and THEY scare me because it costs 2 grand(!?) to replace a water pump (internally driven by the cam chains and inside the valley), and there have been people who have bricked engines when water pumps have failed. Not a problem with non-transverse engines, but I'd take a 4 cyl EB in an Edge or Explorer and take my chances with intake valve carbon over the prospect of a blown up water pump.
It's always something...my '02 E150 needed new cylinder heads on the Romeo 4.6 because of the bad design of the early Romeo PI heads. Covered by warranty... And then the history of shooting out spark plugs, sticking plugs in 3V heads, etc. I am hoping all of those cyl head engineers are retired by now.
The new 3.5 and 2.7 Ecoboosts (non transverse applications) do have port injectors as well as DI, which is a Toyota system to both reduce emissions (better fuel atomizing at idle) and to clean backs of intake valves.
But there are DI-only 2011 Eboosts with over 200k miles on them that have had no problem with carbon deposits. (I'm a Subaru fan also and their current 2.0 DI Turbo DOES seem to have the intake valve carbon problems, so I have no illusion that this is no longer a problem...)
So 2 things make me feel better--Ford has a good history with no major carbon buildup problems with DI only, and as they revise their Eboosts into the next gen, they seem to be adding secondary port injection....although the first year Ranger 2.3EB may not be one of the engines to benefit from this.
For what it's worth, I have looked at Edges and Explorers with the 3.5 normally aspirated engine and the 2.7 and 3.5 Ecoboosts and THEY scare me because it costs 2 grand(!?) to replace a water pump (internally driven by the cam chains and inside the valley), and there have been people who have bricked engines when water pumps have failed. Not a problem with non-transverse engines, but I'd take a 4 cyl EB in an Edge or Explorer and take my chances with intake valve carbon over the prospect of a blown up water pump.
It's always something...my '02 E150 needed new cylinder heads on the Romeo 4.6 because of the bad design of the early Romeo PI heads. Covered by warranty... And then the history of shooting out spark plugs, sticking plugs in 3V heads, etc. I am hoping all of those cyl head engineers are retired by now.
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,379
Likes: 9
From: midwest
my friend has a 3.5 na edge with 100k. coolant is low on it and should definitely have coolant changed to keep that water pump happy
timing belts are easier and cheaper
cartridge filters also annoy me too
timing belts are easier and cheaper
cartridge filters also annoy me too
Logistics Pro
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,411
Likes: 1,016
From: Central KY
And the cartridge oil filters are wonderful. ZERO mess and no lying on your back trying to maneuver a filter wrench up into the engine bay.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,379
Likes: 9
From: midwest
the labor times to change one of these water pumps is minimum 10 hours. its 11.4 hours on an edge!!!
depending on where the cartridge oil filter is located, i.e. underneath its messier and more time consuming than a spin on filter.
also twice the price.
depending on where the cartridge oil filter is located, i.e. underneath its messier and more time consuming than a spin on filter.
also twice the price.
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 7
From: Pittsburgh, PA
The full size Raptor has a V6. The new $100k Lincoln Navigator is limited to a V6. These facts seem weird to me also. Although these make 450 hp. Paradigms are changing.
The 2.3 EBoost has more horsepower and way more torque at lower RPM than its competitors' V6's... (In the Explorer, the 2.3 EB is an upcharge from the base 3.5 V6.)
Ford is doing power with turbos...
The 2.3 EBoost has more horsepower and way more torque at lower RPM than its competitors' V6's... (In the Explorer, the 2.3 EB is an upcharge from the base 3.5 V6.)
Ford is doing power with turbos...
I get that Ford is doing big power with their turbocharged engines, I just prefer a naturally aspirated engine. Typically they are more reliable and need less maintenance. Turbos can get real finicky on what type of fuel you can use in them, what type of oil you can use, coolant, etc... Also with a small turbo-4, the only time it's going to get really good fuel economy is when you're not using any boost at all. As soon as you allow the boost to come on, your fuel economy plummets to about that of an old V8! A naturally aspirated V6 can do comparable power more consistently, without huge differences in fuel economy. I like the Ranger, but I will cross-shop it against the Colorado or Frontier; which both offer a naturally aspirated V6.
Moderator
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 8,227
Likes: 1,243
From: San Antonio, TX
Ford should put the 3.3 NA V6/six speed auto, currently used in the base F150, in the Ranger. That would be a solid and reliable combination.
If I was a fleet buyer, I would avoid the 2.3 EB/ten speed combo. You don't want to put your drivers in anything other than the least expensive drive train.
My Dad, at 79, still sells trucks everyday. They have zero info on the Ranger other than press releases. He used to sell a lot of fleet models. Lots of companies use smaller trucks. I saw an Orkin Tacoma the other day.
He sells a lot of gas Super Duties to fleet customers. Drivers abuse the trucks and the new DPF diesels aren't exactly bullet proof. Accidentally putting diesel in a DEF or vice versa costs $15-18k. The Ranger will need a simple base drivetrain unless Ford isn't going for the fleet market.
If I was a fleet buyer, I would avoid the 2.3 EB/ten speed combo. You don't want to put your drivers in anything other than the least expensive drive train.
My Dad, at 79, still sells trucks everyday. They have zero info on the Ranger other than press releases. He used to sell a lot of fleet models. Lots of companies use smaller trucks. I saw an Orkin Tacoma the other day.
He sells a lot of gas Super Duties to fleet customers. Drivers abuse the trucks and the new DPF diesels aren't exactly bullet proof. Accidentally putting diesel in a DEF or vice versa costs $15-18k. The Ranger will need a simple base drivetrain unless Ford isn't going for the fleet market.
Senior User
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 336
Likes: 2
Ford should put the 3.3 NA V6/six speed auto, currently used in the base F150, in the Ranger. That would be a solid and reliable combination.
If I was a fleet buyer, I would avoid the 2.3 EB/ten speed combo. You don't want to put your drivers in anything other than the least expensive drive train.
My Dad, at 79, still sells trucks everyday. They have zero info on the Ranger other than press releases. He used to sell a lot of fleet models. Lots of companies use smaller trucks. I saw an Orkin Tacoma the other day.
He sells a lot of gas Super Duties to fleet customers. Drivers abuse the trucks and the new DPF diesels aren't exactly bullet proof. Accidentally putting diesel in a DEF or vice versa costs $15-18k. The Ranger will need a simple base drivetrain unless Ford isn't going for the fleet market.
If I was a fleet buyer, I would avoid the 2.3 EB/ten speed combo. You don't want to put your drivers in anything other than the least expensive drive train.
My Dad, at 79, still sells trucks everyday. They have zero info on the Ranger other than press releases. He used to sell a lot of fleet models. Lots of companies use smaller trucks. I saw an Orkin Tacoma the other day.
He sells a lot of gas Super Duties to fleet customers. Drivers abuse the trucks and the new DPF diesels aren't exactly bullet proof. Accidentally putting diesel in a DEF or vice versa costs $15-18k. The Ranger will need a simple base drivetrain unless Ford isn't going for the fleet market.
Moderator
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 8,227
Likes: 1,243
From: San Antonio, TX
That they are. Oil patch is a big part of my Dad's sales. Everything from F150s to F750s. Gas engine sales are bigger and bigger each year.
If the new Ranger is tough, I'm sure some will wind up in the oil patch as supervisor trucks or similar light use. The suspensions take a major beating. Modern cars don't last.
We'll see soon enough if they last in the Eagle Ford, Permian Basin, North Dakota or the strip mines of Wyoming. My dad has a saying about oil field trucks; When they go into the oil patch they never come back. Which is to say they get used and used until they're junk, not traded in.
From what I've seen of the global Ranger, it looks like the toughest truck of it's size on the market. Let's hope the frame and suspension haven't been modified too much.
If the new Ranger is tough, I'm sure some will wind up in the oil patch as supervisor trucks or similar light use. The suspensions take a major beating. Modern cars don't last.
We'll see soon enough if they last in the Eagle Ford, Permian Basin, North Dakota or the strip mines of Wyoming. My dad has a saying about oil field trucks; When they go into the oil patch they never come back. Which is to say they get used and used until they're junk, not traded in.
From what I've seen of the global Ranger, it looks like the toughest truck of it's size on the market. Let's hope the frame and suspension haven't been modified too much.
Senior User
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 336
Likes: 2
That they are. Oil patch is a big part of my Dad's sales. Everything from F150s to F750s. Gas engine sales are bigger and bigger each year.
If the new Ranger is tough, I'm sure some will wind up in the oil patch as supervisor trucks or similar light use. The suspensions take a major beating. Modern cars don't last.
We'll see soon enough if they last in the Eagle Ford, Permian Basin, North Dakota or the strip mines of Wyoming. My dad has a saying about oil field trucks; When they go into the oil patch they never come back. Which is to say they get used and used until they're junk, not traded in.
From what I've seen of the global Ranger, it looks like the toughest truck of it's size on the market. Let's hope the frame and suspension haven't been modified too much.
If the new Ranger is tough, I'm sure some will wind up in the oil patch as supervisor trucks or similar light use. The suspensions take a major beating. Modern cars don't last.
We'll see soon enough if they last in the Eagle Ford, Permian Basin, North Dakota or the strip mines of Wyoming. My dad has a saying about oil field trucks; When they go into the oil patch they never come back. Which is to say they get used and used until they're junk, not traded in.
From what I've seen of the global Ranger, it looks like the toughest truck of it's size on the market. Let's hope the frame and suspension haven't been modified too much.